White Hindu Converts: Mimicry or Mockery?

[philosoraptor]

I would certainly never argue that any Hindu, whether by birth or by choice, must or should adopt Christ as a form of the divine. Absolutely not! One of the things that I love about this tradition, though, is the fact that we are free to choose how we wish to conceive of the divine: our iṣṭadevatā. One person's gateway to the Infinite is another's "bloody zombie nailed to a stick."

In support of this view, I would cite the following:

ākāśāt patitaṃ toyaṃ yathā gacchati sāgaram
sarvadevanamaskaraḥ keśavaṃ pratigacchati

and:

ye yathā māṃ prapadyante tāṃs tathaiva bhajāmyaham
mama vartmānuvartante manuṣyāḥ pārtha sarvaśaḥ

I'm not sure about the first verse (need the source), but I can say with confidence that the second verse (which is gItA 4.11 for those who are interested), does not make any allowance for worship of other deities as alternate pathways to worship of Brahman. On the contrary, the differences between Brahman and anya-devatas are stressed throughout the gItA (see below), what to speak of the differences between Brahman and non-Vedic deities.

Also, the Ramakrishna tradition does not actually teach that all religions are "the same." Swami Vivekananda in fact refutes this view in his lecture "The Way to the Realisation of a Universal Religion," as does Pravrajika Vrajaprana in 'Vedanta: A Simple Introduction,' in her chapter on "The Harmony of Religions." The teaching, rather, is that devotion to any iṣṭadevatā, from any religion, can lead one nearer to mokṣa, and that the religions contain insights that can be seen as complementary to one another.

This view and interpretation of the above verses stands in direct contradiction to other pramANas, such as:

antavat tu phalaṁ teṣāṁ tad bhavaty alpa-medhasām |
devān deva-yajo yānti mad-bhaktā yānti mām api || gItA 7.23 ||

which indicates the different destinations that are attained by worshippers of different devatas, who are said to be of meager intelligence. Then again there is gItA 9.23-25 in which Sri Krishna states that worship of anya-devatas is "avidhi-pUrvakam" because He (being Brahman) is the only enjoyer and master of all sacrifices, and again reiterates the view that worshippers of anya-devatas go to the worlds of the anya-devatas in contrast to those who worship Him:

ye ’py anya-devatā-bhaktā yajante śraddhayānvitāḥ |
te ’pi mām eva kaunteya yajanty avidhi-pūrvakam || gItA 9.23 ||

ahaṁ hi sarva-yajñānāṁ bhoktā ca prabhur eva ca |
na tu mām abhijānanti tattvenātaś cyavanti te || gItA 9.24 ||

yānti deva-vratā devān pitṝn yānti pitṛ-vratāḥ |
bhūtāni yānti bhūtejyā yānti mad-yājino ’pi mām || gItA 9.25 ||

Now, you may argue that attainment of deva-lokas is "closer to moksha," but the shAstras do not uniformly endorse that view. See for example

te taṁ bhuktvā svarga-lokaṁ viśālaṁ kṣīṇe puṇye martya-lokaṁ viśanti |
evaṁ trayī-dharmam anuprapannā gatāgataṁ kāma-kāmā labhante || gItA 9.21 ||

which indicates the temporary nature of the rewards of anya-devata worship, after the enjoyment of which the soul returns to the world of mortals. This view is also supported in shruti, for example chAndogya upaniShad 5.10.3-6 among others. Thus, we are enjoined in the study of vedAnta to approach and worship Brahman, and not any other subordinate entity, except perhaps as an accessory to the meditation on Brahman.

It is a nuanced teaching, and it is true, and unfortunate, that many oversimplify it into the obviously and empirically false view that all religions "are the same."

All religions are definitely not the same, and all conceptions of the Supreme Absolute Truth are also not the same. In particular, the Brahman of the Vedas does not promise punishments to those who worship other deities, visit plagues on those who do not worship Him, slaughter the firstborn of those races whose rulers enslave his "chosen people," etc. This is merely one among many reasons why one might logically object to the idea that other conceptions of God are in fact valid, alternate conceptions of the one Brahman of the Vedas.

regards,

[philosoraptor]

Also, considering the title of this thread, I should probably add that I have no issue with White Hindu converts, nor do I consider such a conversion to be "mockery." There are plenty of Indian Hindus who make a mockery of their own religion. To me, the most important factor to consider is the degree to which one's current understanding is based on standard pramANa-s, and not one's race or starting outlook on life. Also, I don't care too much for Deepak Sharma, either. :-)

[Jeffery D. Long]

To me, the most important factor to consider is the degree to which one's current understanding is based on standard pramANa-s, and not one's race or starting outlook on life.

And on that we agree completely!

And we agree on many other things as well. We would need to go line-by-line through the excellent Gītā quotes you have supplied to parse out where our interpretations are the same, where they differ, and where it may be merely a question of wording: probably requiring an entirely new conversation thread.

"Thus, we are enjoined in the study of vedAnta to approach and worship Brahman, and not any other subordinate entity, except perhaps as an accessory to the meditation on Brahman."

It would be as an accessory to meditation on Brahman that I would endorse meditation on any specific devatā.

The first verse that I cited (ākāśāt patitaṃ toyaṃ...) is from the Śānti Parvan of the Mahābhārata.

[ShivaFan]

Namaste Wundermonk

I took a look at the article you shared from Deepak, but first I went to his homepage to take a look at him. He seems a nice guy from all appearances, for some reason I was thinking of some other Deepak Sharma (probably a common name). His “Curriculum Vitae” seems very impressive and he is currently an Associate Professor of Hinduism at a US based University in Cleveland (I bet he misses India sometimes, I’ve been to Cleveland – sorry).

He says, as pointed out, that just as Hindus mimic archetypes of “white” America when they are in the “West” in order to be accepted by “Christian” culture, and that such Indians “deny their colonized” histories, so also “white” Americans who “converted” to Hinduism mimic the “Hindu” to also try to “assimilate” with (I guess Indians). He says both are marginalized. He goes into some conversation about “colonized” and “colonizer” pathologies that predicate somehow the behavior of each, be it Indian or “white” (? what’s white? I know Kashmir Indians more white in pigment and with blue eyes than some of all of my Italian friends, certainly much more white than some former Christian - if they ever were really that -, now Hindu, Cubans I knew... I sort of envied one such Cuban who could get into any temple in India without having to flash the "papers" that asked to be shown at some temples).

He actually even implies some sort of diasporic Indian Hindu post-traumatic servile attitude and disorder of such Indians.

My reaction was to laugh.

Maybe I live in a small world, but I cannot think of any Indians I know here in the US with any sort of “servile” attitude. In fact, you cross them, especially the ladies, and you are going to get it from them. As far as "denying" something about the colonial period, no way. The Indians I know are very open about it, and are ready to "set the record straight". No problems there.

Also, if you are invited to eat over at an Indian Hindu house (please, Hindu lunches only) – always eat it up and you better or else. But that is not a problem for me, or pretty much others I know, we eat it up and it’s yummy.

Let me just say this, I have never had a “disaporic” Hindu hold a door open for me, or say “Let me carry your suitcase”. Now, I have seen Hindus always be very polite and kind to elderly. That is why I like them more than "low class" Americans, who are insulting numb brains and wear their hat on “backwards”.

Maybe such “disaporic” Hindus exist in the United Kingdom, but haven’t seen them in the US, and even when I was in London a couple of times I didn’t notice this “servile” attitude he is talking about – though class status is a big deal in England, I did see that. But I am not sure if that has anything to do with colonialism.

I suppose there might be some Hindus like that, I don’t know them. I wouldn’t mess with the Hindus I know.

As far as the discussion about “converts” (that is a word I don’t really agree with), more specifically “white guys” who are Hindus, and the “Jesus thing”, I am trying to think of examples of some “Western Hindus” hanging onto a concept of Jesus as God, but can’t think of one. Not that I have been to every “Hindu organization” in the USA, but I have been to a lot of them. I do recall some odd spiritualist store which had posters of all sorts of “saints” including Jesus, but when I asked “the guy behind the counter” about that he just said Jesus was “like a Saint”. I don’t think I would call them a “Hindu” group.

I am pretty sure some of the Vedanta organizations give praise to Jesus, but I am not involved with them so I don’t know all the details – but I am pretty sure they don’t think Jesus is God or anything like that. So perhaps some Vedanta groups may be an example of “catering” to Westerners to “peek their interest” in the “message”, but even with that I don’t think they think of Jesus as anything more than “a nice guy”.

As far as Western Hindus hanging onto the “Jesus thing”, recently as a result of a posting from this forum I visited a website of some “Western Guru” (who was much maligned by members of the forum) and after joining their forum just to see I noticed no one even responds and there is no activity on that forum at all so I basically forgot about them. I think they might be an example of trying to mix the “Jesus thing”, but I didn’t read their Jesus thing only I was told they are like that. I was totally bored, frankly, with them, and I don’t think they have any following.

So trying to think of examples, I am not seeing anything there, neither in terms of Indians having post-traumatic colonization servile disorder nor Western Hindus who worship Jesus or have a “Jesus thing”. Might be out there, but …

Actually the only example I can think of, where Western Hindus seemed to still have reverence to Jesus, goes way back to the early 1970’s. Upon visiting a temple, a couple of us were gathered later outside, then more joined into a conversation.

It’s actually sort of funny, you might enjoy it!

This was really a “motley crew” if you will, ranging from some rich white guy who owned a “health food” grocery (no meat), to “regular folks” (that includes me!) and 3 Indian guys. So it was four “white guys” (Western Hindus), three “Indian guys” (two Hindus born in India, and the third was a Hindu from Fiji). So it started off with 1 Indian guy, two “white guys”, then the Fijian joins in, eventually all seven of us get invited by the “rich guy” to get into his car and drive to his house where we were going to whip up a vegetarian lunch! The “rich guy”, he was sort of perhaps pompous, he drove a white 1968 Mercedes-Benz 600 with this huge grill on the front, that normally would sport these “city shield” placards (round shaped) that screw onto the grill that had “heraldic shields” of cities such as Munich Germany, but instead he had a modified placard with an “OM” symbol on it. But he would give “donations” to various temples, groups and “Indian events” (?), so he was sort of popular… Some how all seven of us get into the Mercedes. The Fijian allowed the “stink bomb” (I will explain in a minute) to sit on his lap.

One of the seven was sort of a known lunatic from the Haight-Ashbury days who had a nickname “the naked Jesus” (I guess because he would sometimes go about naked, and was acting like he was a yogi or something – yes he was wearing clothes at the time). He sort of smelled bad.

So here is where the only time I recall that a serious Jesus conversation started. The rich guy was back from a trip to India, then the lunatic who seemed sort of normal at the time starts to bring up this conversation about “Jesus visited India” book. The book was called “The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ” (I think – never read it), and he was saying this book claims Jesus travelled to India for many years during the “lost years of Jesus”. Then one of the other “white guys” chimes in and says he has also heard of this. Then the Fijian says, he thinks Jesus did visit India. By the way, in regards to “servile” demeanor, no way did the other two Indian born Hindus have such an attitude, but you know this Fijian Hindu actually sort of did project such an attitude.

The rich guy said this all sounds interesting, maybe Jesus did visit India but he doubted it. No one of the group however made any comments such as Jesus is God or anything like that. The one “white guy” talked about how Jesus might have “learned things from yogis”. So this is the only example I can think of where “Western Hindus” (and one Fijian perhaps) were still for some reason hanging onto perhaps some old reverences.

Om Namah Sivaya

[Jodhaa]

Namaste,

Very Interesting topic.

The Indian Hindus I know from the Temple in no way display this servile attitude from what I have seen. However, most of the older individuals have lived in the US fro 20+ years, so I don't know if this has anything to do with it. I have never been to India, although I have heard there are places where the Indian population will still adopt a servile attitude to white/western visitors.

On the subject of western converts holding onto this idea of Christ as God - I don't think that really exists. The "New Age" will often include Christ as a saint, or enlightened being and therefore include him among their pantheon of deities. But I don't know of western Hindus - who exclusively practice Hinduism - holding on to Christ and seeing him as anything more then a "nice guy" as someone said earlier.

I find the idea that western converts make a mockery of Hinduism by practicing it to be a little offensive, and slightly odd. While there's a fine line between cultural appropriation and legitimately trying to show respect to a culture, part of what makes it easier to progress within the faith (for me anyway) is to what extent I'm willing to leave my "western-ness" at the door when I go to Temple. Being western is about more then just how we dress or what we eat. It's an entire way of looking at life. With a change of mind comes changes in habit, or ritual.

One the other hand when I wear a salwar to Temple, the Indians treat me differently. Not necessarily better, but they are more open. It's as if the clothes are a signal - "Oh, she's not just a curious visitor, she's one of us."

I know, that they know, that I don't wear a salwar everywhere I go and that I didn't wear it growing up. It's a cultural thing. But wearing it to Temple is my way of saying, "Thank you for welcoming me." I dress in a way that is culturally familiar as a gesture of respect. Of course I could wear western clothes to Temple, but I started wearing Indian clothes at the encouragement of Indians at the Temple.

Clothing is just one superficial example, of course. But if Indian Hindus are really worried that westerners are making a mockery of them, I don't see why they would encourage changes in clothing, diet etc.

You have to take this sort of thing on a case by case basis. I think most socially intelligent adults can tell when someone is making a mockery of them and when they are genuinely expressing admiration for a culture/religion. I think the only thing an article like this does is discourage westerners who are legitimately drawn to Hinduism from pursuing it or living it in the open. You can't have you cake and eat it too - you can't despair about the decline of Hinduism and also attack those trying to convert to it. If we're not "Hindu Enough" it's because we lack resources, not because we're inherently careless about it.

Peace!

[philosoraptor]

Actually, there are ISKCON devotees who claim that Jesus is a sort of avatar. And Vivekananda and other Neo-Hindu thinkers say flattering things about Jesus all the time. One of our HDF members JaiRadhe is a self-admitted syncretist who has pictures of Mary and Jesus on her altar. There are lots of other examples, but the bottom line is that, yes, there is a tendency among the uninformed Hindu population to mix in ideas from other religions. I attribute at least some of this to a mentality of a post-colonialist inferiority complex. Sort of like a "see, our Hindu religion is very good too, because we accept your religion" or some such thing. With Western converts, the psychology may be different, as Sahasranama pointed out. But whatever the case may be, a lot of it just stems from ignorance.

[Believer]

Namaste,

After all the noise dies down, and it becomes tranquil,

A convert who is 'Hindu at heart' and has left the trappings of his/her old faith should be considered a Hindu. Such people should not take offense when topics such as this are discussed, or may be not even read them to spare themselves any anguish arising out of misunderstandings. Many ill-informed or overzealous Hindus tend to say things that just don't come out right. So forgive them, for they know not how they are hurting others and themselves.

A person who amalgamates his past with his/her new found awareness/love for Hinduism will practice it the way he/she sees fit. There is nothing we can do about these Universalists. All that is requested is that such people should not consider or declare themselves to be Hindus. They are hybrid 'something'. Just because a guru, for a small donation, declares the J-man to be a reincarnation of God, does not in any shape or form change Hinduism and make Hindus accept outsiders as part of the Hindu pantheon.

Pranam.

[ShivaFan]

Namaste Philosoraptor

Actually everyone is making some great points, and this thread is a lot of fun.

But I doubt the ISKCON example is a good one, there is no doubt that some characters show up at a temple and say all sorts of stupid things, be it an ISKCON temple or any other temple (though more Westerners might show up to an ISKCON temple than let's say an "Indian Community Center" in the US). So you might be right that someone may have said something that Jesus is a sort of avatar, but I wouldn't call that person a member of ISKCON and I have no doubt that Prabhupad would ask any such devotee to leave the temple.

Did you actually hear this from an actual ISKCON membed? I have never heard such a thing, though I remember once I went to a Sunday feast and some guy wearing bells in his hair and odd attire started saying Hare Jesus Hare Jesus and was thrown out of the temple right away and given a good tail kick.

I think there was a ISKCON member who actually did start to have some Jesus preaching, but that person was thrown out as well. So I could be wrong, but I don't believe ISKCON ever had or will have any such ideation that Jesus was some sort of avatar.

Om Namah Sivaya

[charitra]

whilst attending college in Hyderabad for over 3years, I attended most of Sunday lectures delivered by none other than swami Ranganadhananda at local RKmutt.Thereafter I left the country and swami had relocated to Kolkata to head the Organaization of Ramakrishna order. Some years later I went back to the same city and served as a part-time volunteer at the same mission for over 2 years and again during this period attended the talks of the then head of the Hyderabad RK branch.Not a single day did any of the speakers bring up any name from outside Hinduism in all their talks.

When I returned to the US and attended some talks by the RK mutt swamis here, the surprising disparity I noticed was the generous use of J word in the American setting. Why this huge makeover, I was clueless. After pondering over the discrepancy, I concluded this practice to be on the lines of appeasement policy towards their western audiences. Something like political correctedness gone overboard and lost control. Some thoughts.The fact that both Ramakrishna and vivekananda had lived in Kolkata all their life and that the region was ruled by the Europeans in that era (1800s) probably primed them to be careful about what they say. Speculating a bit further, I think, that the conniving Brits might conspire and throw them in prison on some pretext or the other remained a potential threat for the residents and visitors of the famous kali mandir (ma Durga was a blood drinking demon, LOL), and therefore they kept uttering some sweet words to keep the Brits and Portugese and French in good humor. An act of swadharma is not blasphemy IMO. During his time here in the US, vivekananda, was mobbed by the same people who were raised 'praising the lord', they went on probing him on the relevance of their faith to hindus. He was again careful never to appear derogatory towards the host folk. He nodded. ‘yes. Mr J was a nice man’ and used his oratory skills bit more than the situation demanded of him, it is a self preservation technique at its best. No one ever dreamt that RK mutt would gain so much popularity until the death of vivekanada, naturally as a result what all they said even as a passing remark or a metaphor turned a law of their faith now!! More was thus written about JC by RK monks afterwards.

Those who worship the divine figures of their former faiths alongside hindu divinities may continue to do so and they don’t need anyone’s approval, but I agree as already said above, they ought to refrain from calling themselves hindus. It would be generous of them if they can call themselves ‘friends of hindus’ instead and, go no further. As far as hindus are concerned these individuals are universalists (which is well and good) and not hindus. All the scriptural/canonical work was long finished when abrahamics have set foot on mainly hindu lands. Where does the question of an abrahamic figure being considered for a hindu review arises then? Unless of course Ramakrishnaites call their faith a non-hindu belief system just as buddists call theirs different from Hinduism, they cant have it both ways. Coming to the title of the thread, there is absolutely nothing mockery about the converts, they are the new ambassadors we all should be proud of (can we get a better word, convert sounds depressing). Namaste.

[Jeffery D. Long]

A couple of people have now raised the issue of when it is okay for one to consider oneself Hindu (and have suggested that some people should not do so, probably having in mind people who are still very attached to and involved in the religious traditions of their upbringing "polluting" Vedic traditions or the Hindu pantheon with outside figures).

I formally joined the Vedic tradition through the Arya Samaj seventeen years ago. I have had what could basically be called a Hindu philosophy of life for as long as I can remember. I was a "Hindu at heart," even while being raised Catholic and getting into lots and lots of arguments with people in the church, and found my philosophy confirmed in the Bhagavad Gītā, which I first read when I was thirteen years old, thirty years ago. (I am forty-three: or rather, this body is forty-three.)

My understanding of Hinduism has been heavily influenced by the teachings of Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda. I know that not all Hindus agree with this particular branch of the tradition; but there are many, many saṃpradāyas who disagree on many things that are nevertheless regarded as Hindu (the various kinds of Vaiṣṇavas and Śaivas, for example).

I have been welcomed very, very warmly by people who are Hindu by birth and feel most at home in this community. Leaving the church and practicing Hinduism was, for me, like getting rid of an old pair of shoes that were pinching and hurting my feet and finding a new pair that fit comfortably and beautifully. I am quite certain that this is not my first lifetime in this tradition.

At the same time, I am not hostile to my old tradition, or to any tradition, and I believe there is wisdom to be found everywhere, in all religions. So in that sense, I am a universalist. I have especially found, in addition to Vedic traditions, much wisdom in Buddhism and Jainism, and my greater distance now from Christianity helps me to appreciate aspects of it as well.

The Jesus topic of this thread came up because Sahasranama quoted something I had said to this effect in another forum in an attempt to prove my insincerity.

Am I Hindu? Am I "a hybrid something"? Or am I Pure Consciousness? I thought that was really the whole point all along.